09 October 2009

Nobel Cmte: 3 Left Liberals, 2 Liberals

Ah, now it makes sense. . . the whole Barry as Nobel Prize winner thing. . .the selection cmte was dominated by Euro-lefties who love his Hate America First diplomacy:

". . .a peek at the backgrounds of the five people who made the selection gives a clue why the prize panel would be so favorably disposed to Obama – three of them would be considered hard-left liberals in American politics. One of those belongs to Norway’s Socialist Left party.

And all five people on the committee are politicians selected by the Norwegian parliament, and generally hew to a Norwegian view of foreign affairs — internationalist in outlook and with a broad affinity for Obama’s posture on the world stage."

And don't let the red herring that two cmte members belonged to Norway's version of the GOP fool you. . .conservatives in Europe are simply slightly less emphatic about their socialism than their opponents.


  1. Anonymous11:20 PM



  2. Rachael Maddow? You're kidding, right? B.O.'s Left-Hand Mouthpiece at CNBC?

  3. Anonymous2:09 PM

    That does not answer the question.

    Point by point: What is NOT true?

    I think it's TRUE. Point by point.

    Please don't just dismiss it; say what is incorrect.

    I find it to be honest. And I do NOT have an ax to grind. Thank you in advance.

  4. Anonymous12:26 AM

    Still waiting. Is that not John McCain singing "Bomb Iran." Granted that's just one thing. But WHAT isn't true. I don't write Rachel Maddow love letters.

    I'm just saying: she does her homework. That Rhodes Scholarship didn't come from dust bunnies under the bed.

    Thank you again in advance for your point by point rebuttal.

  5. Dude, chill out...Rome is seven hours a ahead of the central US...I got your challenge last night about 11pm and I'm just now getting back from Lauds.

  6. OK...here's the thing...every single Nobel prize winner that Maddow mentions had been working for years before the prize was awarded. For example, Carl von Ossietzky (1935) began his work for peace in 1917. Do the math. Tutu same thing. Mother Theresa same thing. ALL of the people she mentioned had made long careers out of actively (actively!) pursuing peace on a global scale.

    What has BO done (done!)? Nothing. He gave a happy-clappy speech at the UN about nuclear disarmament. A speech he probably didn't even write. Even the French president thought he was being incredibly naive. If, after he is booted from office in 2012, and some twenty years later, he continues to work for nuclear disarmament AND if he sacrifices like the other prize winners, he might be worthy of the prize.

    Maddow argues that opposition to the prize going to BO is a case of Obama Derangement Syndrome. Well, even left-liberal critics think the award was ridiculous. And the Nobel cmte's defense of the award to BO was incredibly naive and fawning.

    R.M. may have been a Rhodes Scholar, but that doesn't prevent her from drawing bad, really bad analogies.

    BO has DONE nothing to deserve the prize. He's capable of doing everything necessary, but claiming that intent is a sufficient for winning is ridiculous. The other prize winners--those who labored decades and sacrificed everything for peace--must be rolling in their graves.